Originally posted by: Mike OWhy is it that a little green muppet from 1980 looks more realistic and lifelike than the best CGI that the 21st century has to offer? What does this say about the state of modern "special" effects?
Look at
Robocop. The ED-209 stop motion may look dated, but the practical effects by Rob Bottin on Robocop himself are as impressive as ever.
An American Werewolf in London is still arguably the best werewolf transformation ever filmed (CGI can seem to get werewolves right),
Alien is as breathtaking and terrifying as it ever was, and the full-body shot of the queen in James Cameron's
Aliens is more impressive than anything in the prequel trilogy. CGI, when used carefully, is an interesting tool. But that doesn't mean that older effects techniques have no merit. One one hand, filmakers can now create anything that they can imagine. On the other, this means that they might not stop to think outside the box. An excellent review for
The Road Warrior that I once read put it best. There is a certain visceral thrill that one can only get by banging two objects together, and CG can't replace that.
That's basically the point I was trying to make with my signature.
Except I don't know if you get a visceral thrill seeing Yoda bumping around his little house, but at least he looks like he is actually filling that physical space.
I love The Road Warrior too - can you imagine how crappy it would be done with CGI?